Appellate Court Agreed That No Opposition To Fees Would Normally Be Dispositive, But Reversal In Eliminating Damages Changed The Landscape.
Hao v. Wang, Case o. B306737 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Aug. 12, 2022) (unpublished) is an interesting case in showing how even a litigant not opposing a fees motion may still get a remand where there is a significant merits reversal. However, there was a threshold appealability issue which we also discuss.
What happened here is that a tenant obtained issuance of a civil harassment restraining order, including an award of special damages and damages for pain and suffering against landlord. More pain was imposed with an attorney-fee shifting award under the harassment statute because there was no opposition by landlord. The fee award was reversed because damages were not recoverable under the harassment scheme.
The appealability issue was resolved against landlord because tenant’s appeal of an order awarding fees but not fixing the amount means that the first order encompasses the subsequent order fixing the amount. (Golightly v. Molina, 229 Cal.App.4th 1501, 1520-1521 (2014).) [BLOG NOTE—We do not opine often on the correctness of the award, but a subsequent order fixing fees should also be appealed as we have blogged on many times under our category “APPEALABILITY,” just to avoid on a jurisdictional appellate challenge.]
Despite landlord not contesting the fee motion, the forfeiture was not dispositive because the damages elimination reversal required a “revisit” of the fee award, given this was a legal issue which could be considered de novo.
Comments